9/2550 Thailand Supreme Court Opinion 119 (No. 5491) 2007
Siam Arun Trading Company Limited vs. Mr. Hienghai Sae Lao

Re: Termination of Lease Agreement; Advance Notice; Statute of Limitations

The defendant petitioned the court to permit revision to his answer comprising the following four statements:

(1) statement authorizing the filing of the lawsuit from the previously filed statement  be changed to the statement claiming the falsified signature of the authorized representative of the plaintiff and the assertion that the seal used was not the plaintiff’s seal at registration,

(2) statement in which the defendant claimed that he entered into a reciprocal agreement which would allow him to reside in the Thailand disputed building for the duration of his life be changed to the statement that the plaintiff had no title to the land and the building leased by the defendant,

(3) statement related to the termination of the agreement and advance notice by the plaintiff in which the defendant claimed was unlawful be changed to the statement that the agreement was of indefinite duration because the plaintiff had not objected to the defendant’s occupation of the leased building after the termination of the agreement. The termination of the rental agreement must conform to section 566 of the Civil and Commercial Code. Prior to the legal action, the plaintiff had not given notice of the termination of the agreement and the plaintiff’s notice letter was not a notice of termination of the agreement and that the plaintiff had no rights to pursue legal action, and

(4) statement concerning the cause of the plaintiff’s obscure legal action be changed to the plaintiff’s obscure statement of legal action which did not explain which plot of land or which street the disputed house was situated on, and therefore, that the legal action was obscure.  

The defendant has presented the facts and reasons for rejecting the action, and has changed his former answer, including the order of the Court of First Instance allowing the defendant to petition for a revision to his answer before the day of taking evidence. However, this case does not fall in the category of cases receiving exemption for a revision to an answer after the day of taking evidence, such as a correction to a minor error or an issue concerning the peace and order of the public, according to section 180 of the Civil Procedure Code.

However, the defendant submitted a petition to revise his answer after the day of taking evidence, which was a violation of the statute as stated. Furthermore, the defendant’s appeal in statements 3 and 4 was a defense based on his petition to the Court of First Instance to permit revisions to his answer, which the Court did not authorize nor permit to be used in his appeal.

Even though the Appellate Court reviewed the previous judgment of the Court of First Instance concerning the revisions to his answer, and the defendant subsequently appealed, it is deemed that the revised answer was not permitted by the Court of First Instance, and, in the same manner, in the Appellate Court, according to section 249 of the Civil Procedure Code.